COMPETITOR INTELLIGENCE

Lexology PRO

Power up your legal research with modern workflow tools, AI conceptual search and premium content sets that leverage Lexology's archive of 900,000+ articles contributed by the world's leading law firms.

On May 27, 2016, HP Inc. of Palo Alto, California (“HP”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain inkjet printers, printheads, ink cartridges, components thereof, and products containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,270,201 (the ‘201 patent), 6,491,377 (the ‘377 patent), 6,260,952 (the ‘952 patent), 7,004,564 (the ‘564 patent), 7,090,343 (the ‘343 patent), and 7,744,202 (the ‘202 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):

Memjet, Ltd. of Ireland

Memjet US Services, Inc. of San Diego, California

Memjet Home and Office, Inc. of Eagle, Idaho

Memjet North Ryde Pty Ltd. of Australia

Memjet Technology Ltd. of Ireland

Memjet Holdings Ltd. of Ireland

Afinia LLC of Chanhassen, Minnesota

Astro Machine Corp. of Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Colordyne Technologies, LLC of Brookfield, Wisconsin

Formax Technologies, Inc. of Dover, New Hampshire

Neopost USA, Inc. of Milford, Connecticut

Printware LLC of Eagan, Minnesota

VIPColor Technologies USA, Inc. of Newark, California

ABC Office of Kaysville, Utah

All for Mailers, Inc. of Feasterville, Pennsylvania

Fernqvist Labeling Solutions, Inc. of Mountain View, California

Information Management Services LLC of Hillsboro, Oregon

JMP Business Systems, Inc. of Clovis, California

Mono Machines LLC of New York, New York

Ordway Corp. of Placentia, California

Pacific Barcode Inc. of Temecula, California

Pacific Code & Label, Inc. of Portland, Oregon

Parts Now! LLC of Madison, Wisconsin

Trademark Copysystems Inc. of Cleveland, Ohio

Vivid Data Group LLC of Dallas, Texas

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to inkjet printer technology. In particular, the ‘201 patent relates to a high speed printing system that is capable of ejecting ink drops with a predictable volume. The ‘377 patent relates to a printing system with a high density of nozzles for generating ink drops. The ‘952 patent relates to improved electrical connections in an inkjet printhead. The ‘564 and ‘343 patents relate to the configuration of a printing-fluid container, such as an ink cartridge. Lastly, the ‘202 patent relates to the configuration of a printing-fluid container, such as an ink cartridge, in a printer’s ink transport system.

In the complaint, HP states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to various Memjet inkjet printers, printheads, and ink cartridges as infringing products and states that the other Proposed Respondents either are original equipment manufacturers that incorporate these accused Memjet products into their own products or are distributors of infringing Memjet products.

Regarding domestic industry, HP states that its own inkjet printers, printheads, and/or ink cartridges practice the asserted patents. HP further states that it has made significant and/or substantial investments in these products in the U.S. HP refers to a confidential exhibit in support of its economic prong allegations.

As to related litigation, HP states that, concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, it also filed a complaint against Memjet, Ltd. and others in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon alleging infringement of certain of the asserted patents. HP also states that on August 11, 2015, Memjet Tech. Ltd. filed a complaint against HP in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California alleging infringement of eight patents, and HP has counterclaimed in that action for infringement of the ‘377 patent.

With respect to potential remedy, HP requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order, a permanent limited exclusion order, and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents and related entities.

"As a busy in-house practitioner, I rarely have the time to attend formal seminars and conferences. Consequently, I find the news releases put out by the various law firms invaluable in keeping me up to date on developments in the law and recent case law. The service that Lexology provides, through consolidating those various news releases and grouping them under the relevant categories, is a timesaver for me and allows me to do a quick daily scan of recent developments."